Should we only promote Candidates who abide by the Constitution?

[emilynghiem]

I got this message from a former leader with the Constitution Party of Texas.
He is speaking from his personal experiences, not as representing that party.

Emily,
>
> What you are
> encountering is what we have experienced since our founding in 1996.
> People like to wave the flag and flaunt the Constitution, but few are
> willing to truly support either - nationalism is not patriotism. The sad
> truth is most people in America no longer want constitutional government.
>
> If you go to court with the Constitution as your only or primary
> argument, you don't have a case. Law schools don't even teach the
> Constitution these days. Principle is of no interest in today's kangaroo
> courts. I wish I could be of help, but we have no attorneys involved
> with us in Texas (there are very few truly constitutional attorneys left
> in the country).
>
> Regarding dividing the party, realize the people are already divided.
> Only about half the people register to vote, and only about half of
> those who register actually vote. This means only about 25 percent of
> eligible voters participate in any given election, and that means most
> elected officials get less than 15% approval from eligible voters; but,
> None of the Above doesn't get counted. Campaign managers well know that
> swaying only 3-4% of the population is all that is needed to win an
> election. The key is to identify that group.
>
As long as people keep voting for unconstitutional candidates (to say
nothing of the people demanding unconstitutional benefits) things will
only get worse. The only solution is to build local organizations and
> pray for the day when we have enough support to win the day. We didn't
> get into this mess overnight, and unless God intervenes, it will take
> considerable time to change the way people think and begin returning to
> the principles which made America great. Most people today don't even
> know what form of government we are supposed to have. Our founders
> abhorred democracy, and called it mob rule. If we don't even know what a
> republic is and how it safeguards the people, there is little chance
> things are going to change until the wheels fall off completely.
>
> Most of us who started this effort are now in our senior years, on fixed
> incomes, and struggling just to maintain a party presence. We need
> younger folks to step up to the plate, but they are too busy with
> Facebook, etc. to involve themselves and sacrifice their time to make a
> difference. I'm hopeful things will change, but I'm not the least bit
> optimistic.
>
The people are divided, but the real division is not party, it is by
economic class. As long as the major parties keep the voting public
divided over hot-button issues, they will never unite on constitutional
ones. The Constitution Party is the only party seeking a return to the
> principles of biblical jurisprudence on which our Constitution was
> created. Until the culture returns to its heritage, it will continue to
> reject this message.
>
> For liberty under God

Do you agree with this assessment of the problems?

What do you think of a Constitutional conference to address issues of political parties,
and holding candidates, leaders, parties, media and govt to Constitutional standards?

 

[emilynghiem]

cont'd
Here is more from the messages I received as cited above from the same author:

"What gets lost in all the political rantings is the fundamental principles of our founding. I only know of three possible views, God is Sovereign, man is sovereign, or government is sovereign.

The two major parties fall into the latter category. They just keep the dog and pony show alive to keep the people inside the two-party box. They believe and want the same thing, but there has to be the appearance of a difference or the people would look elsewhere. By appealing to social issues, the Democrats keep their followers in tow. By appealing to fiscal matters, the Republicans do the same. The wealthy on both sides don't give a hoot about the people, only their power. They use scare tactics every election to press these issues in order to keep the masses at the bottom from jumping ship. It is very effective with those who are still voting the major parties but, as I previously noted, most people in American have quit voting because they refuse to support this evil.

With the exception of the Constitution Party, all other parties believe man is sovereign. The Constitution is a creation of man and it recognizes the sovereign, but even parties which say they want constitutional government, ignore the True Sovereign. They walk the fence desiring constitutional protections with obedience to the Sovereign, and ultimately without true allegiance to the Constitution as well. Ted Cruz is a good example. Like Obama, he is not a natural born American citizen. It was a Democrat who first observed Obama was born in Kenya to a Kenyan father, and that caused a stir. Now, this constitutional issue is not even a matter of discussion; the precedent has been set, and a provision designed to preserve the heritage of our founding has been relegated to the pages of history. Seemingly, no one cares. EVERY major party candidate I hear, even in these alternate parties, campaigns on pledges to violate the Constitution. Though I am unashamedly a Christian, I would gladly accept a person of any faith who pledged to uphold the Constitution and actually did so. Of course, I would prefer a Christian who would do the same, but I don't find them in these groups or in the major parties.

The Constitution Party is the only party I know of which recognizes God as Sovereign, as the founders of this country did. Anyone who wants to know why America was an exceptional country needs to carefully study its founding. The authority for our system of government flowed from Almighty God to the people, who then created the government. The chain of command has been turned upside down as far as most Americans are concerned. Unless and until this is changed, the demise of this country is certain; the only question remaining is when the hand in the glove of government decides to pull the trigger.

The founders of this country understood they had a duty to God, and that the best way to insure their happiness was to create a system of government which allowed them to control it even to the point of abolishing it if they so desired. Today, the words of the founders would be treason in the ears of many in our government, which is why these things aren't taught anymore. The people want to control the government to satisfy their special interests; not to assure it obeys its job description in the Constitution. The ongoing battles for control demonstrate this beyond all reasonable doubt.

Until we understand the difference between legal and lawful, things will not change. Everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. However, legislation is only lawful when it comports with fundamental law. In America, fundamental law is the Constitution, and the Constitution is founded on biblical law, which is from the Lawgiver. In its better days, the Supreme Court recognized this in its rulings, but no more. The Courts think they are the law. This has caused chaos in the legal system with one judge declaring something to be unconstitutional while others do not. The situation well fits that of Israel in the days of the judges, "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes." This is not a prescription for just government.

[contd]"

 

[Timmy]

The premis is kinda dumb . The constitution is not some oracle that has all the answers . That's why is has that part about courts . There will always be disputes .

I'd like to hear some examples of what's "unconstitutional ".

 

[ScienceRocks]

I won't vote for anyone that doesn't fund our infrastructure, our science institutions, r&d investments and education. We're not in the 18th century and that is a good thing.


Constitution has allowed the federal government to do just that for the past 200+ years.

 

[emilynghiem]

cont'd

When I was in high school in Dallas, Texas in the 1960's, we could take an elective course on the Bible for credit toward graduation. I still have those text books. I well remember history classes on government in which a chart in the collection of maps was discussed (they were all bound together and attached to an easel which was kept at the front of the classroom). The government chart resembled the Empire State Building and I well remember the what was written on the foundation block beneath all of it: "A Fundamental Belief in God."

If you want to know why America is falling, it is because we have systematically and intentionally destroyed the foundation, and this has taken place on the watch of those who should have known better (including me). I learned these things, but got busy with life and for almost 25 years after college followed the path most Americans who vote continue to follow. There aren't words to express how grieved I was when I became convicted of my dereliction of duty in 1996. Pardon the digression, but I am convinced that until Americans, especially Christians, repent of the compromises which continue to this day, we will never have the blessing of Almighty God, and without His blessing, all our efforts are futile. History is replete with examples.

Divergent groups can certainly work together on specific issues where they agree, but as long as there are fundamental differences in worldview and loyalty, they will never be united. The Tea Party is an excellent example of the problem. It is a mish-mash of people who are agreed on economic issues but all over the board on most everything else. It isn't truly a political party, but rather a movement. It can't become a party until it comes to a unity, and I don't see that ever happening without huge losses in its numbers. The problem is not the economy - it is fundamental worldview.

Indeed, the Constitution Party was created for many who have aligned with the Tea Party, but they refuse to come and do the hard thing (work for ballot access). They want what they perceive as a successful party with a chance to win, but they don't know enough to realize that if they want it they are going to have to work and sacrifice for it. Ron Paul got the microphone because he was in the GOP at the time. Without that impetus, the Tea Party would have never existed. The free ride Tea Party supporters got attracted them, but they still are not effectively organized. When they contact us, we try to involve them locally to build where they are, but when they hear, "Tag you're it," they disappear. Texas is an extremely difficult state for new political parties and without critical resources it is impossible to get on the ballot.

If you want to engage in a real battle for a change in government, go after the Texas Legislature to get the ballot access laws changed. I won't bore you with all the details, but this is a subject most Texans have never considered. Until a party can be on the ballot, it is very difficult to attract candidates, and without candidates, it is hard to attract voters. Changes in recent years have made things even worse, and that at the hands of the Libertarians.

In closing, do understand that the targeted 4% I mentioned are pretty much within the major parties, and the effort is to sway them toward one party or candidate to another. To be successful in countering the major parties is going to take awaking a significant portion of the sleeping giant of people who don't vote and getting them involved. Most of those who vote now are pretty much a hopeless cause, in my opinion. A few can be awakened, but for the most part my experience tells me reaching them takes more time and resources than it's worth - still, I challenge them when the opportunity arises.

For liberty under God,

 

[emilynghiem]

The premis is kinda dumb . The constitution is not some oracle that has all the answers . That's why is has that part about courts . There will always be disputes .

I'd like to hear some examples of what's "unconstitutional ".

According to the Veterans Party of America, all social legislation is "unconstitutional"
In other words, the responsibility for social programs is reserved to States and People to run as we wish, and is not the purpose of federalized govt to regulate our social structures and policies.

Dear Matthew if funding could be assured to go into the schools in order to manage resources as delegated by appropriate fields, can't all the decisions be made locally WITHIN those academic depts by knowledgeable people.
INSTEAD of trying to decide those policies at the federal level where Congress is not the expert on all these issues. Do you see why legislation gets backlogged when too much is concentrated at the top.

Why not reward schools locally, statewide and nationally for setting up proven programs that deserve funding.
Keep those policies decided locally by people who represent that field.
And not try to make it govt responsibility to micromanage each and every division and decision.

Timmy If we give authority to federal govt to control the policies and funding for our needs, this creates a "conflict of interest" where we no longer have the upper hand to tell govt what to do. Govt officials will just answer to where the money is, not what the people want to invest in. If govt controls the purse strings, they tell us what to do, such as vote for this person or that person if you want to get X Y Z from us. That's backwards. We should retain control of resources, and tell govt, if you want us to hire you, agree to manage a program that achieves X Y Z or we won't give you the money. We'll keep it in our party and hire other people to build the program we want. You either represent what we want, or we hire someone else to do it, or do it ourselves.

Do you see the difference?

 

[Timmy]

cont'd

When I was in high school in Dallas, Texas in the 1960's, we could take an elective course on the Bible for credit toward graduation. I still have those text books. I well remember history classes on government in which a chart in the collection of maps was discussed (they were all bound together and attached to an easel which was kept at the front of the classroom). The government chart resembled the Empire State Building and I well remember the what was written on the foundation block beneath all of it: "A Fundamental Belief in God."

If you want to know why America is falling, it is because we have systematically and intentionally destroyed the foundation, and this has taken place on the watch of those who should have known better (including me). I learned these things, but got busy with life and for almost 25 years after college followed the path most Americans who vote continue to follow. There aren't words to express how grieved I was when I became convicted of my dereliction of duty in 1996. Pardon the digression, but I am convinced that until Americans, especially Christians, repent of the compromises which continue to this day, we will never have the blessing of Almighty God, and without His blessing, all our efforts are futile. History is replete with examples.

Divergent groups can certainly work together on specific issues where they agree, but as long as there are fundamental differences in worldview and loyalty, they will never be united. The Tea Party is an excellent example of the problem. It is a mish-mash of people who are agreed on economic issues but all over the board on most everything else. It isn't truly a political party, but rather a movement. It can't become a party until it comes to a unity, and I don't see that ever happening without huge losses in its numbers. The problem is not the economy - it is fundamental worldview.

Indeed, the Constitution Party was created for many who have aligned with the Tea Party, but they refuse to come and do the hard thing (work for ballot access). They want what they perceive as a successful party with a chance to win, but they don't know enough to realize that if they want it they are going to have to work and sacrifice for it. Ron Paul got the microphone because he was in the GOP at the time. Without that impetus, the Tea Party would have never existed. The free ride Tea Party supporters got attracted them, but they still are not effectively organized. When they contact us, we try to involve them locally to build where they are, but when they hear, "Tag you're it," they disappear. Texas is an extremely difficult state for new political parties and without critical resources it is impossible to get on the ballot.

If you want to engage in a real battle for a change in government, go after the Texas Legislature to get the ballot access laws changed. I won't bore you with all the details, but this is a subject most Texans have never considered. Until a party can be on the ballot, it is very difficult to attract candidates, and without candidates, it is hard to attract voters. Changes in recent years have made things even worse, and that at the hands of the Libertarians.

In closing, do understand that the targeted 4% I mentioned are pretty much within the major parties, and the effort is to sway them toward one party or candidate to another. To be successful in countering the major parties is going to take awaking a significant portion of the sleeping giant of people who don't vote and getting them involved. Most of those who vote now are pretty much a hopeless cause, in my opinion. A few can be awakened, but for the most part my experience tells me reaching them takes more time and resources than it's worth - still, I challenge them when the opportunity arises.

For liberty under God,

Yeah the 60s were such a magical peaceful time ! Lol! People like to look at history wh rose colored glasses .

"Oh the good old days . Jesus in public schools, and blacks being water cannoned in the streets! Those were wonderful times". Lol!!!